I'm Touring The United States! Starting in June, I'm conducting private events in 23 American cities. Click here for full details.

Post Reply 
Voting franchise discussion
Author Message
Bluey Offline
Chubby Chaser
**

Posts: 280
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 12
Post: #1
Voting franchise discussion
After seeing it mentioned in some of the other threads, I though I'd start a discussion on limiting the voting franchise.

It's pretty clear that a universal, everyone gets a vote system leads to the destruction of a nation and it's values, as discussed in several other threads, as people vote of more gimmedats.

How exactly would you limit who could vote? How do you limit it to people who won't simple vote for "free" stuff? How do you stop it being gamed so the wealthy and powerful don't limit it to themselves? Do women get a say in things and why do they?

Would you limit it to property owners like the USA did originally?

The man who has a family?

Go full Starship troopers style?

Like many, I like the idea of starship troopers service confers citizenship but it would have to be positions where you are expected to put your life on the line with real chance of loosing it, like infantry or firefighters, not just something where you fold blankets for a few years in government service.

I suspect you need to allow everyone pretty much equal rights under law, bar the say in the direction of the nation. Only those who are willing to sacrifice get a say, everyone else can make money, have families, etc. etc. but don't get to have a say in the direction of the nation.

What says the RVF brain crew? question
(This post was last modified: 08-15-2019 02:13 AM by Bluey.)
08-15-2019 02:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bluey's post:
kruger41
Simeon_Strangelight Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 17,874
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation: 216
Post: #2
RE: Voting franchise discussion
Who says that a voting system is the best?

Obviously onle men should be allowed to vote.

I would not tie it to property. It's enough if it's every man who is working for his bread.

But on top of it you would have to enact a direct democratic system that lets the men vote in any changes similar to Switzerland, but far more frequent and adequate to the current technological possibilities. You could even have an online voting system installed at home.

That way - any rep can start a petition:

"Do you want a wall built?"
"Do you want immigration restricted to 100.000/year?"

This would be a nightmare system to the elite and not even Switzerland has that, though they had a good one up until the 1990s.
08-15-2019 05:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Simeon_Strangelight's post:
infowarrior1, kruger41
Barron Offline
True Player
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,765
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 46
Post: #3
RE: Voting franchise discussion
I don't understand how voting rights can apply to individuals dependent on government social programs like welfare.

This is beyond illogical to the point that it must be intentional.

two scoops
two genders
two terms
08-15-2019 05:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Barron's post:
Samseau
TigerMandingo Offline
International Playboy
******
Gold Member

Posts: 3,971
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 47
Post: #4
RE: Voting franchise discussion
We’re way past voting being even effective at this point. The whole “let’s limit voting to property owners and responsible individuals” is a dumb conservabro idea that would never work out in the real world.
08-15-2019 09:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Genghis Khan Offline
Alpha Male
****

Posts: 1,189
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 55
Post: #5
RE: Voting franchise discussion
It honestly doesn't matter.

The way it works:

limited voting franchise --> extend franchise --> democracy goes retarded --> chaos --> autocracy/tyranny

Trying to limit voting franchise right now is like trying to go back in time.

Not happening. - redbeard in regards to ETH flippening BTC

#TeamRoboDoc
08-15-2019 07:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Genghis Khan's post:
BlueMark, Samseau, infowarrior1
Sherman Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 1,665
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 16
Post: #6
RE: Voting franchise discussion
(08-15-2019 07:02 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  It honestly doesn't matter.

The way it works:

limited voting franchise --> extend franchise --> democracy goes retarded --> chaos --> autocracy/tyranny

Trying to limit voting franchise right now is like trying to go back in time.

I see you have read Plato.

Rico... Sauve....
08-15-2019 07:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Sherman's post:
Genghis Khan, infowarrior1
Genghis Khan Offline
Alpha Male
****

Posts: 1,189
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 55
Post: #7
RE: Voting franchise discussion
(08-15-2019 07:11 PM)Sherman Wrote:  
(08-15-2019 07:02 PM)Genghis Khan Wrote:  It honestly doesn't matter.

The way it works:

limited voting franchise --> extend franchise --> democracy goes retarded --> chaos --> autocracy/tyranny

Trying to limit voting franchise right now is like trying to go back in time.

I see you have read Plato.

The scary thing is how the people in charge apparently haven't.

Although antidem has a dim view of the US founding fathers, so perhaps can't blame the current elite.

https://antidem.wordpress.com/2013/10/19...-oct-2013/

Quote:1) To the extent possible, this column will not deal with the mundane, day-to-day affairs of politics. I shall leave mundane politics to mundane thinkers – the Rush Limbaughs of the world handle such things better than I could, and have more interest in them than I do. After all, anyone who knows history and is not blinded by ideology or hubris knows how this will turn out in the end. There will be no coming-to-senses to save the Republic. It will slide further and further into moral degeneracy and economic bankruptcy until either tyranny or dissolution occurs. Plato told us 2500 years ago that that was the inevitable path of democracies. In our hubris, we believe ourselves to be an exception. We aren’t. Watch.

Not happening. - redbeard in regards to ETH flippening BTC

#TeamRoboDoc
08-15-2019 07:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Genghis Khan's post:
Sherman, Barron, infowarrior1
Genghis Khan Offline
Alpha Male
****

Posts: 1,189
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 55
Post: #8
RE: Voting franchise discussion
An absolute must read (another post by antidem):

https://antidem.wordpress.com/2017/08/10/where-we-are/

The last paragraph is what Aurini was referring to in another thread (where he mentioned that someone once wrote that the US founders may have built a system that doesn't allow for the natural evolution of democracy into authoritarianism)

Quote:(*It is not entirely unexpected that Dunning-Kruger cases like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would have completely misunderstood what Plato was trying to warn them about. They believed that Plato was warning them that democracies always give way to authoritarianism, and thus built strong defenses against authoritarianism into the design for their democracy. But what Plato was really trying to tell them was that democracy inevitably devolves into such horrendous moral, social, and economic chaos that decent, smart, educated people will, with full deliberate intent, beg an authoritarian leader to take power and restore order, even if it does impinge on their liberties to some degree. The fear that these pseudointellectuals really did design a system that will make it impossible for a Caesar to come and save us is what keeps me awake at night.)

Not happening. - redbeard in regards to ETH flippening BTC

#TeamRoboDoc
08-15-2019 08:08 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like Genghis Khan's post:
BlueMark, Barron, infowarrior1, Leonard D Neubache
Bluey Offline
Chubby Chaser
**

Posts: 280
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 12
Post: #9
RE: Voting franchise discussion
(08-15-2019 09:35 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  We’re way past voting being even effective at this point. The whole “let’s limit voting to property owners and responsible individuals” is a dumb conservabro idea that would never work out in the real world.

I don't think it possible to fix the current systems in place in the western world as a whole. I'm fairly sure what comes next it some sort of dictatorship. The question remains what after that? How do you try to ensure the system is limited to people who have skin in the game, and limit corruption of said system into the mess we have now.

I've read opinions the the USA will end up as a military coup, followed by a Starship troopers style voting system, but I doubt it. What I haven't seen much of what the alternatives are.

Simeon_Strangelight have mentioned a few times his idea of the best system is a benevolent dictator or monarch, but I see that as too far from what people in the western world are used to for them to accept.

What I can see is people thinking voting is a waste of time for the most part, including several on this forum, with most people not really being invested in politics beyond what's in it for me. How do you keep the people who are willing to think beyond that as the guiding force without them trying to replace the people they're supposed to represent as we've seen over the last decade or two?
08-16-2019 02:42 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
ilostabet Offline
Wingman
***

Posts: 600
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 19
Post: #10
RE: Voting franchise discussion
There should be only two votes in any political unit: the King's and the Bishop's. Everything else can be dealt with contract law between the interested parties.

As for political options, the people retain the healthy right to conspire against and assassinate one or the other or both if they become tyrannical, as it tends to happen every 300 or so years in such a system if we go by European historical trends. This was how it was done in the most socially and morally stable period of our history. I see no reason to reinvent the wheel.

We can talk a good game of women needing to be submissive to men or about differences in IQ and how they manifest in the real world, but most never consider that men should also submit to other men, because some men are better than others. Some men can lead a family, but not a business. Some can lead a business and a family, but not a village. Some can manage all those three, but not a county. And so on.

Some men are more intelligent, wiser, more charitable, honorable and cultured than the majority. Those should rule unimpeded by the idiocy and vainness of common men, whose opinion can be swayed by little more than trinkets and fanfare into supporting their own destruction.

A good political system is one that protects people from themselves. Voting is the worst method to accomplish this objective.

Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.
(This post was last modified: 08-16-2019 03:10 AM by ilostabet.)
08-16-2019 03:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like ilostabet's post:
JiggyLordJr, Leonard D Neubache, Kid Twist
Simeon_Strangelight Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 17,874
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation: 216
Post: #11
RE: Voting franchise discussion
(08-16-2019 02:42 AM)Bluey Wrote:  
(08-15-2019 09:35 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  We’re way past voting being even effective at this point. The whole “let’s limit voting to property owners and responsible individuals” is a dumb conservabro idea that would never work out in the real world.

I don't think it possible to fix the current systems in place in the western world as a whole. I'm fairly sure what comes next it some sort of dictatorship. The question remains what after that? How do you try to ensure the system is limited to people who have skin in the game, and limit corruption of said system into the mess we have now.

I've read opinions the the USA will end up as a military coup, followed by a Starship troopers style voting system, but I doubt it. What I haven't seen much of what the alternatives are.

Simeon_Strangelight have mentioned a few times his idea of the best system is a benevolent dictator or monarch, but I see that as too far from what people in the western world are used to for them to accept.

What I can see is people thinking voting is a waste of time for the most part, including several on this forum, with most people not really being invested in politics beyond what's in it for me. How do you keep the people who are willing to think beyond that as the guiding force without them trying to replace the people they're supposed to represent as we've seen over the last decade or two?

Obviously those that say that we cannot vote our way out of this - they are correct.

In order to get a good system started we would need:

1) Depose the current usury central banking bunch - create state banks that are constantly under supervision and which print money interest-free based on the economic output of it's people. This process is not that difficult to do in order not to end in a banana republic. Best also to add demurrage into that printed currency. You can check out the Woergl experiment and the massive effects it had on the local economy.

2) After usury banking you tackle the monopolization of the power structure that has happened - you go disband most Masonic lodges, force newspapers and media outlets to be sold off to different parties, take back control of academia, media, entertainment. Currently it's controlled as one.

Actually before step 1 you would have to deal with the fact that the usury bunch have control over the world's secret services - so good luck attempting your reform while they have 100.000 James Bonds going after your life and suiciding everyone left right and center. It will be like the Clinton suicide-accident-friend team times 1000.

So only after Step 2 you could even begin to enact a better system.

I do think that only men should vote for a variety of reasons - we are far less prone to be influenced by emotions and we have a better grasp of using logic and reasoning for arguments.

My personal assessment is that a benevolent autocracy would be best. I proposed the creation of a non-hereditary everyone-gets-a-chance selection system of that ruling class. If you want to become one of them you need to agree to 24h surveillance since birth and will be selected not only on the basis of intelligence and industriousness, but also ethical behavior. None of our current politicians would survive that election process. Our current system is hereditary and also prefers smarty psychopaths and even lunatics whose only skill aside from being born by the right mother is to be able to con most people.

The rulers would change constantly since the baker's boy down the street might become the next plutarch.

Though to even implement my idea of a system would necessitate the majority of the people to see the wisdom for it. The difficulty lies not in the upkeep of such a system. The true difficulty would be in creating such a system, getting it started.

Most people don't even understand the importance of usury banking, the control grid of our world - big tech, media, entertainment, media - it all eludes them. I am afraid that this is just doomed to collapse. Maybe in the future a better system can be created.

Plato was correct that after democracy dictatorship follows. We are already entering malevolent dictatorial levels anyway. We are in a malevolent democratic-dictatorial inter-generational usury system.

Also keep this in mind - even if my idea of a system gets manifested and creates a prosperous peaceful usury-free utopia, then the more wealthy psychoapthic bunch will be trying behind the scenes to corrupt the rulers, to change utopia so that they can rule again. So you would need to constantly watch out for them. Those people like to do evil, because they are into that kind of thing. It's not enough for them to have orgies with 19yo girls. They want to defile 7yo twins and then cut out their hearts listening to their screams. Currently we are likely led by people like that. Their system will have to collapse first.
08-16-2019 03:21 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Simeon_Strangelight's post:
infowarrior1
JiggyLordJr Offline
Beta Orbiter
*

Posts: 136
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation: 3
Post: #12
RE: Voting franchise discussion
(08-16-2019 03:08 AM)ilostabet Wrote:  There should be only two votes in any political unit: the King's and the Bishop's. Everything else can be dealt with contract law between the interested parties.

As for political options, the people retain the healthy right to conspire against and assassinate one or the other or both if they become tyrannical, as it tends to happen every 300 or so years in such a system if we go by European historical trends. This was how it was done in the most socially and morally stable period of our history. I see no reason to reinvent the wheel.

We can talk a good game of women needing to be submissive to men or about differences in IQ and how they manifest in the real world, but most never consider that men should also submit to other men, because some men are better than others. Some men can lead a family, but not a business. Some can lead a business and a family, but not a village. Some can manage all those three, but not a county. And so on.

Some men are more intelligent, wiser, more charitable, honorable and cultured than the majority. Those should rule unimpeded by the idiocy and vainness of common men, whose opinion can be swayed by little more than trinkets and fanfare into supporting their own destruction.

A good political system is one that protects people from themselves. Voting is the worst method to accomplish this objective.

Post Of The Day
08-16-2019 07:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like JiggyLordJr's post:
Leonard D Neubache, infowarrior1
Sherman Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 1,665
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation: 16
Post: #13
RE: Voting franchise discussion
The main problem of any political system is succession. Once you have a reliable mechanism in place, the government can continue for hundreds of years. Democracy was thought to be more reliable than inheritance. You start out with a great King and then his son turns out to be a nightmare. The Roman Empire solved that problem by eventually having the military decide the next ruler, and quickly eliminating the bad ones.

As I have mentioned before, I think China is at the leading edge of forming the government of the future. They have a strong Mandarin type bureaucracy in place for training and selecting the next leader. With over a billion people, you can't fool around and have the kind of idiots that America produces for politicians.

The Democrats are now pushing for voting rights for even criminals and illegal aliens. The politicians act like dogs begging at a table for votes and money. Only the lowest scum of society will run for political office.

Notice that the most dignified leaders in the world today, Putin and Xi, come from the more authoritarian models - Russia and China. They have the leading edge systems.

To see how low Democracy can go, see the below video of Justin Trudeau.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gklSBe18toU

Rico... Sauve....
08-16-2019 09:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Leonard D Neubache Offline
Innovative Casanova
*******
Gold Member

Posts: 11,414
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 204
Post: #14
RE: Voting franchise discussion
Personally I suspect that as others have noted, all systems are prone to failure because success leads to complacency and complacency leads to failure.

I agree with ilostabet on democracy being an inevitable fuckfest. It's not a tool for good governance, it's a pacifier to help the losers feel like they'll get their turn at the helm sooner or later so they don't have to enter into rebellion. Eventually that facade slips and the people realise it's all a sham (the commoners never get a turn at the helm).

Part of the great success of our evil overlords is that they convinced the best, brightest and most honorable among us that they were obligated to do nothing more than make shitloads of money and then vote like every other schmuck, or at best donate to the campaign of either one of the snake-oil salesmen put forward for office in any given year.

In reality our best, brightest and most honorable exist to lead us forward in driving the monsters out of our societies and keeping them out afterward. The rest of us are obligated to pick up our torches and pitchforks and do the dirty work. Sad that we've had to learn the hard way how wrong we were.

Better one tyrant (at worst) than a rotating army of them, each carrying a small enough portion of the tyrant's guilt that nobody can feel truly justified striking them down, nor can they effect much change by doing so.

God demands of Man responsibility. God demands of Woman vulnerability. These are their curse and blessing alike. Libertianism is to Man as Feminism is to Woman.
(This post was last modified: 08-16-2019 09:56 AM by Leonard D Neubache.)
08-16-2019 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 5 users Like Leonard D Neubache's post:
ilostabet, kruger41, infowarrior1, BlueMark, Kid Twist
Enoch Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 2,377
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 12
Post: #15
RE: Voting franchise discussion
Tax-paying men only.
08-16-2019 12:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Enoch's post:
infowarrior1
christpuncher Offline
Chubby Chaser
**

Posts: 509
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation: 8
Post: #16
RE: Voting franchise discussion
Voting tries to supplant waring elite families and violent upheaval of the masses. So if you can't participate in violent upheaval (women, children, elderly/infirm men) you don't get a vote.

Women voting creates an unstable society because the men know they can choose to subjugate the women at any moment they wish, so letting them vote wrecks the spirit of peaceful democracy by not recognizing that it is an alternative to violent upheaval.

Poor men should and do get the same vote as rich men. Democracy is not about tax fairness.
(This post was last modified: 08-16-2019 02:41 PM by christpuncher.)
08-16-2019 02:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like christpuncher's post:
BlueMark, infowarrior1
Lunostrelki Offline
Chubby Chaser
**

Posts: 452
Joined: May 2016
Reputation: 15
Post: #17
RE: Voting franchise discussion
In the US, democracy was supposed to protect the middle class and prevent everyone from becoming serfs. The system did a fairly good job of this until recently. Now, the middle class is shrinking, the oligarchs are using financial voodoo to get richer constantly, and the proles are being grown via a combination of expelling people from the middle class and importing serfs from poor countries.

The American experience is that you can give people the best land, the best laws, the most political autonomy, and they'll still give up those rights to people who are craftier and smarter than them, because most people are stupid and lazy.
08-16-2019 03:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 8 users Like Lunostrelki's post:
Brodiaga, BlueMark, infowarrior1, Leonard D Neubache, BBinger, Renzy, Kid Twist, JiggyLordJr
ilostabet Offline
Wingman
***

Posts: 600
Joined: Jun 2017
Reputation: 19
Post: #18
RE: Voting franchise discussion
I was reminded of this essay (despite them talking about another essay from the same author) on a recent stream that Aurini as on recently with The Distributist. It's a bit long, but it's a well written, engaging and provocative argument against democracy, not just the form of it we see today, but every form, the very implications of the idea itself.

I recommend it if you have the time and the inclination.

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org...qualified/

Don't call it a grave, it's the future you chose.
08-17-2019 03:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like ilostabet's post:
infowarrior1, Bluey
infowarrior1 Offline
True Player
*****

Posts: 1,617
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 10
Post: #19
RE: Voting franchise discussion
@ilostabet

Good find.
08-17-2019 06:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes infowarrior1's post:
Bluey
Bluey Offline
Chubby Chaser
**

Posts: 280
Joined: Mar 2016
Reputation: 12
Post: #20
RE: Voting franchise discussion
(08-17-2019 03:28 AM)ilostabet Wrote:  I was reminded of this essay (despite them talking about another essay from the same author) on a recent stream that Aurini as on recently with The Distributist. It's a bit long, but it's a well written, engaging and provocative argument against democracy, not just the form of it we see today, but every form, the very implications of the idea itself.

I recommend it if you have the time and the inclination.

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org...qualified/

If I'm understanding the gist of that right, he's saying any "democratic" system is doomed to always drift left. That's part of why I started this thread. Does anyone think it possible to design a system that doesn't eventually end up being dominated by the will to power types promising free stuff?

Or are we doomed to forever be ruled by the people with the strongest will to power, and at best hope for an benevolent dictator?
08-17-2019 07:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Bluey's post:
ilostabet
Genghis Khan Offline
Alpha Male
****

Posts: 1,189
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 55
Post: #21
RE: Voting franchise discussion
(08-15-2019 08:12 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(08-17-2019 07:23 PM)Bluey Wrote:  
(08-17-2019 03:28 AM)ilostabet Wrote:  I was reminded of this essay (despite them talking about another essay from the same author) on a recent stream that Aurini as on recently with The Distributist. It's a bit long, but it's a well written, engaging and provocative argument against democracy, not just the form of it we see today, but every form, the very implications of the idea itself.

I recommend it if you have the time and the inclination.

https://www.unqualified-reservations.org...qualified/

If I'm understanding the gist of that right, he's saying any "democratic" system is doomed to always drift left. That's part of why I started this thread. Does anyone think it possible to design a system that doesn't eventually end up being dominated by the will to power types promising free stuff?

Or are we doomed to forever be ruled by the people with the strongest will to power, and at best hope for an benevolent dictator?

Read antidem

antidem.wordpress.com

Go in chronological order, his stuff gets better with time.

If you have the time, read The Decline of the West by Oswald Spengler.

But in a nutshell:

every now and then we get a civilization, which lasts approximately 1000 years. Ancient Egyptian, Chinese, Greco-Roman, Indian, etc etc.

The current one we have is the Western Civilization.

Each civilization is like an organism (idea first espoused by Spengler). It dies. Just like organisms, every civilization dies.

Once a civilization is dead, you end up with pretty much what's monarchy. Local monarchs predominantly.

Until 500 or 1000 years later another civilization comes about.

That's the cycle of history.

"anyone think it possible to design a system that doesn't eventually end up being dominated by the will to power types promising free stuff?"

If it wasn't will to power types promising free stuff, it would be some other types fucking it up.

If you can accept that civilizations on a grand scale and societies on a smaller scale are organisms, analogous to human beings...it doesn't matter whether heart disease, cancer, diabetes or a sword ends a human life. At the end of the day, every human will die. If it isn't one thing that kills a society off, it'll be something else.

Note: I'm making a strong distinction here between civilizations/societies and the people who are part of it. People often outlast the civilizations they were part of. Modern day Greeks are descent of Ancient Greeks, even though that civilization has been dead for a long time.

Not happening. - redbeard in regards to ETH flippening BTC

#TeamRoboDoc
08-17-2019 07:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like Genghis Khan's post:
Leonard D Neubache, ilostabet
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Trump's ability to restore US demographics discussion Design Engineer 59 5,803 01-21-2019 07:53 AM
Last Post: durangotang
  Libertarian Party discussion puckerman 242 91,804 11-25-2017 07:37 PM
Last Post: Leonard D Neubache
  RVF Voting Drive for DJT KorbenDallas 79 22,037 11-08-2016 08:47 PM
Last Post: Swooper

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication